This page created 11 June 2002

The following policy was ratified by the Green Party on10 November 1999
It first became publicly available in May 2001, then it was removed from the Green web site

The Green Party Treaty and Maori Policy

Toi tu te marae a Tane
Toi tu te marae a Tangaroa
Toi tu te iwi.
If the marae of Tane survives
If the marae of Tangaroa survives
The people live on

Ko koe tena,
ko ahau ki tenei kiwai
te kete.
With you on that handle
and I on this handle,
together we will lift the basket.

INTRODUCTION:
The Treaty of Waitangi founded the modern New Zealand state and outlined a framework for a partnership between the Crown and Maori. The Green Party is striving in its Maori policy to outline its ideas for the basis of a constitutional and statutory partnership between Tauiwi and Tangata Whenua that will honour the Treaty of Waitangi.

This Treaty partnership will be supported and promoted by the Green party in trying to achieve power and influence in the many different areas of government policy that affect Maori. The Green Party perspective on the Treaty partnership is to expand on the present day status quo to truly integrate iwi, hapu and Maori into the decision-making processes and institutions of New Zealand. While also recognising the need to address historical Treaty grievances in an open and honest way that will restore and uphold the Tino Rangitiratanga of Tangata Whenua and the honour of the Crown.

The Green Party is still working on many other Maori policy issues, such as health, education, Te Puni Kokiri, and broadcasting. Consequently they are not included at this point in time, though it is planned that they will be included later in 2000.

THE EFFECTS OF COLONIALISM
The Green party acknowledges:

That in the main Maori honoured the Treaty, whilst the Crown, and later the New Zealand Government, pursued many policies and enacted laws that were designed to individualise and promote the alienation of Maori land and other resources, and established basically monocultural political, economic, social, health and educational institutions which benefited Tauiwi to the detriment of Maori.

That this marginalisation of Maori had a traumatic effect on Maori as a people: they lost their economic base, their culture was debased with a resultant near loss of Te Reo, whilst other results are still to be found today in that Maori tend to be highest on all negative indicators of health, education, economic and other performance, and lowest on all positive indicators.

That there have been many instances where Maori have not been treated equally before the law despite the guarantees of Article 3 of the Treaty; and that the government has not hesitated to use both military and police force from time to time to force substantive sovereignty on Maori and put down Maori protests.

That though much has been done in recent years to redress historical grievances, and some notable settlements have been made, much remains to be done. This process has had aspects of the imposition of rules by Government on Maori. The Green Party is striving in this Treaty policy to contribute substantively in a constructive manner from a Green Party perspective to the ongoing debate and consultation within society as to how to best honour the Treaty of Waitangi and overcome the negative effects of colonialism through partnership.

TE TIRITI O WAITANGI AOTEAROA/NEW ZEALAND

Preamble
As we enter the 21st century the demographic make-up of our society is growing ever more diverse, and very different from that pertaining in 1840 when Maori chiefs and the British Crown in the person of Governor Hobson signed the Treaty of Waitangi. The faces we present to the world represent an increasingly multi-cultural society. A major challenge for us as a society is to make sure that this diversity becomes an asset rather than a cause for division in our society. Much more needs to be done by the government to help the different ethnic groups who now call New Zealand home to understand and respect each other.

However, the Green Party affirms the unique place of Maori in Aotearoa/New Zealand. It holds that the Treaty of Waitangi is a living and fundamental constitutional document, which sets out not only the relationship between Maori and European-descended New Zealanders (Pakeha), but between Maori, all immigrants, and their descendants since 1840 (Tauiwi). The Green Party believes that it is essential that Government provide the means for an information campaign that adequately informs both current settlers and prospective as well as new immigrants of the position of Maori and the key role of the Treaty of Waitangi as a major reference point for determining political and social relationships in this country.

1. The Green Party recognise:

THE GOVERNMENT OF AOTEAROA/NEW ZEALAND

Kawanatanga and Tino Rangitiratanga
There is an as yet unresolved tension between the cedeing by Maori of "Kawanatanga" to the Crown in Article I, and the Crown's affirmation of the Maori right to "Te Tino Rangatiratanga" in Article II. Whilst "partnership as envisaged by the Treaty" is a term much bandied about, there is no agreement between the Treaty Partners as yet, as to how that partnership is to be defined.

Constitutional Commission
The Green Party commits itself to the need for an independent Constitutional Commission of equal representation of Maori and non-Maori, which will be resourced and empowered to:

i) Encourage discussion of the relevant constitutional issues arising from the Treaty, through wide dissemination of different viewpoints and draft proposals, and:

ii) Commence the detailed negotiations needed to reconcile the different interpretations of Te Tino Rangitiratanga and Kawanatanga into new shapes and roles for our political institutions.

The Green Party Contribution to the Debate
2. The Green Party envision that in promoting social and environmental sustainability and the protection and repair of the environment that the concerns of iwi, hapu and tangata whenua must be integrated into the decision making process through a partnership with central and local government. This partnership is essential so that the views of iwi, hapu, and tangata whenua can be adequately represented in the decision making process and thereby honour the Crowns commitments under Article II of the Treaty. As such, the following points outline the basic ideas and concepts the Green Party have in any government policy development on these issues at this point in time.

Central Government
2.1 The Green Party support MMP and acknowledges the increase it has brought in the number of Maori MPs in Parliament through an increase in the number of Maori electorate seats, general electorate and list seats. The Green Party also supports the opening up of the Maori roll for new enrolments at least once every three years between general elections. The Green Party acknowledges that Maori representation in Parliament is a constitutional issue that still requires resolution.

Regional, District and City Councils
2.2 One of the key roles of the Regional, District and City Councils is to carry out their duties and obligations under the 1991 Resource Management Act (RMA). Intrinsic to the RMA is the taking into account of the interests of Tangata Whenua through sections 6 (ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga), 7 (Kaitiakitanga) and 8 (Treaty). The Regional, District and City Councils need to be required to actively take these duties and obligations more seriously. In order to create a true partnership in the sustainable management of natural and physical resources iwi and hapu need to be represented on Regional, District and City Councils and their various committees by elected representatives.

2.3 The Green Party support the concept of substantive numbers of iwi and hapu representatives on Regional, District and City Councils so that they can be an effective part of the decision making process.

2.4 Urban Maori Representation and STV. The Green Party has adopted a general democracy policy, which includes the promotion of STV for local government. The STV system should adequately cater for the needs of urban Maori to increase the likelihood of having elected representatives on local bodies, just as MMP has done for Maori in general in Parliament.

THE CONSERVATION ESTATE
3 The Green Party support a partnership approach in the joint ownership and management of the conservation estate. This involves joint ownership (estate in fee simple) being vested in the Crown, and the iwi and hapu who are the traditional 1840 owners of the land. The Green Party completely oppose any privatisation of the conservation estate. Joint ownership must remain with the Crown, iwi, and hapu for perpetuity.

3.1 The Green Party propose that the conservation estate be jointly managed at a regional level by increasing the roles and powers of the present Conservation Boards. Fifty percent of the seats on the board will be for the iwi and hapu representatives of the region and fifty percent will be for community representatives and interest groups (for example, Forest and Bird and local residents).

3.2 The conservation boards will have input and participation in the development of all DOC policy and budget priorities in the management of their regions conservation estate.

3.4 The Green Party support the concept of special sites such as urupa and wahi tapu areas being exclusively gifted to the relevant iwi or hapu. These would be limited in size but would provide iwi and hapu the right to veto any DOC activity on them if they choose to do so.

3.5 The Green Party support initiatives to include local tangata whenua in the employment of DOC, as well as in the handing out of contracts to carry out specific tasks for DOC, for example, contract possum trapping and poisoning, visitor services in parks, wasp eradication etc.

3.6 The Green Party support funding iwi and hapu representatives that are employed for consultation purposes by DOC at appropriate market rates for their time, travel and accommodation.

3.7 The Green Party supports the principle that where there are issues in contention between Maori and the Crown with respect to the management of the conservation estate; and customary an other rights of Maori to fishing and other harvesting, these issues be solved in consultation as between equal partners.

CUSTOMARY USE RIGHTS IN THE CONSERVATION ESTATE
4 The Green Party support the concept of iwi and hapu Treaty rights to non-commercial customary mahinga kai sites in the conservation estate in a manner that does not conflict with the ecological sustainability of the resources and the recreational use of all New Zealanders. This includes, for example, the issuing of customary fishing regulations permits by Tangata Tiaki, and mahinga kai sites for eels, white bait, trout and salmon being managed under the Taiapure and Mataitai reserve provisions within the conservation estate (including National Parks). The sites and species caught there will be monitored through Tangata Tiaki and Conservation Boards.

4.1 The Green Party support the concept of ecologically sustainable non-commercial customary harvest of native plant and animal materials for Maori cultural purposes in the conservation estate (for example, flax, kie kie, pingao, totara etc.). This could be monitored by DOC workers. The conservation boards must first approve all applications for the harvest of cultural materials and keep comprehensive records of all harvest activities.

4.2 A key role of the Conservation Board in their region is to conduct education programs for Tauiwi and Maori as to why endangered species in their region should be protected. For example, Kereru (wood pigeons) are an endangered species in the North Island and can only be saved by involving Maori in the education of their own people against continued poaching. However, in some regions (West Coast of the South Island), they are not endangered and a limited harvest should be acceptable.

The Green Party support:
4.3 The prohibition of marine mammals (seals and whales etc.) from being available for customary and commercial harvest.

4.4 Substitution of other materials where appropriate, e.g. cattle bone instead of whalebone (unless from dead whales found on the coastline) and plantation timber for a waka hull - with totara used for the ceremonial prow.

4.5 All rights to the meat and bones of dead whales washed up on the coastline are to go to the local iwi and hapu. DOC staff will have the responsibility of deciding when whales are no longer able to be rescued.

4.6 Carving timber to be sourced from dead or wind-thrown trees except in cases where it is culturally necessary and ecologically sustainable.

4.7 Sourcing of materials outside reserves where feasible, e.g. carving timbers from indigenous production forest on private land.

4.8 Funding through the conservation boards for the establishment of plantations for cultural harvest species such as harakeke and totara.

4.9 Harvest of plant materials, such as flax leaves, so the health and vigour of the plant is not unduly affected. Establishment of banks of cultural materials (e.g. feathers and
wood) for use when required.

CONCESSIONS
5 The Green Party support iwi and hapu rights to economically benefit from the running of concession based businesses in the conservation estate. In order to provide for this, funding and business education and support will be made available (where independent resources are not available) to tangata whenua for the setting up of their own concession-based businesses. This should not come out of the DOC budget.

5.1 The conservation boards should approve, administer, and monitor concessions in their regions. The safety of the concessionaire's clients and the environmental sustainability of their activities are to be the paramount concerns of the board.

5.2 Where possible the Green Party support the Treaty rights to conservation concessions being given to the appropriate iwi and hapu.

CUSTOMARY FISHING
The Green Party Support: -
6 Iwi and hapu Treaty rights to the ownership and management of their commercial and customary fishing rights.

6.1 The Green Party support the taiapure legislation, customary marine fishing legislation (North and South Islands) and the development of customary fresh water fishing legislation currently being drafted in consultation with iwi and hapu. The central purpose of the marine and freshwater customary fisheries should always be the ecologically sustainable management of the fishing resources for future generations and the upholding of iwi and hapu Article II Treaty rights.

6.2 The concept of the inclusion of trout, salmon and all other non-native fish species within the management capabilities of Tangata Tiaki under the customary fishing regulations. This raises the need for integrated environmental management between recreational and customary fishing organisations in order to sustainably manage the fishery. The Green Party support an open process of dialogue and debate to achieve this.

6.3 A very large increase in the number of full time paid Fishery Officers to monitor and enforce the rules and regulations pertaining to recreational and customary fishing law. Key to this is education of the general public (Maori and Tauiwi) by fisheries officers.

TE REO MAORI
7.0 The Greens recognise that the Maori language (Te Reo Maori) is a Taonga requiring proactive protection. The Greens recognise that Aotearoa is the home of Maori culture and will support and finance Maori initiatives so as to provide a basis for the Maori language to survive and progress into the future.

Public Access New Zealand
Tuesday, 21 May 2002

Jeanette Fitzsimons MP
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Green Party Treaty Policy

Dear Jeanette

At your invitation, on 30 November 2001, I submitted to you substantial comment on the Green Party Treaty Policy. PANZ is disappointed that no response has been received.

There have been no public indications as to the degree, if any, that the policy has been amended since considerable public comment several months ago. Despite the policy being buried from public view, as evidenced by its non-availability on the party website, there must be one as it was "ratified 10th November 1999".

On Focus on Politics (Radio NZ, 24 April 2002) you said, "if people take time to look at the policy, they would be satisfied". This implies that there is a public policy.

To date we have not publicly released our commentary of 30 November, in the expectation that some response would be received.

With the approach of the general election PANZ is preparing commentary on all partys' Treaty and other policies. Unless we hear in the very near future that the policy we reviewed in November is no longer the "ratified policy" and provided with a replacement, we will be obliged to assess the Green Party's approach to the Treaty and public lands on the basis of what we know now.

Yours sincerely

Bruce Mason
Researcher and Co-Spokesman

---

As no response has been received, and New Zealand voters need to make some hard decisions only 7 weeks from now (on 27 July), here is the PANZ critique of the Green Party Treaty policy -

---

Public Access New Zealand
Friday, November 30, 2001

Jeanette Fitzsimons MP
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Green Party Treaty and Maori Policy

Dear Jeanette

Thank you for the invitation of 18 May 2001 to comment on the above policy. I have not replied before now because I believed that the Party had already approved the policy. This letter is the result of me now understanding that the policy is currently being reviewed.

Over the last decade I have taken a strong interest in the Treaty of Waitangi, contemporary interpretations of the Treaty, and the increasing application of 'Treaty principles' to public affairs, in particular to public lands. My starting point was from a personal position of sympathy for claims that historic injustices had been suffered by Maori and that the Treaty could provide a basis for resolution of these difficulties. I suspect that like most New Zealanders, I had a profound ignorance of much of our domestic history and only a cursory understanding of the Treaty's content. I did however have an understanding of constitutional law and the historic reasons behind concepts of 'the Crown' and why we have separation of powers between the Crown, the executive, the legislature, the Courts, and the Church. These were hard-won divisions after Centuries of conflict, leading to our modern secular democracy.

From a lifetime of being either a provider or advocate of public lands for recreation and conservation purposes, both inside and outside of government, I have developed a sense of the public patrimony of public places, and an awareness of the decades of struggle, usually by public-spirited individuals and non government organisations, that instigated many reservations for public benefit. Legislation which governs the administration of public lands reinforce the notion of these being the common property of all New Zealanders with Government and its agents, like DOC, constrained by a duty of trust to hold and administer these lands for public purposes. Although most New Zealanders are probably unfamiliar with the detail of legislation, my perception is that, with the exception of groups with ideological aversion to the very notion that there should be state ownership of anything, there is almost universal acceptance that there are, and there should be, lands reserved in Crown ownership for public rather than private benefit.

You are probably aware of successive expressions of strong public disquiet over legislative proposals for the 'Queen's Chain' that resulted in successive Governments, nominally of different political persuasions, being forced to back off from privatisation plans. Concerted NGO action also ensured that a political intent of mass freeholding of Crown pastoral lands did not eventuate with passage of the Crown Pastoral Land Bill. You of course can take part credit for that outcome as a member of the select committee that considered this Bill. PANZ is currently involved in the consequent tenure review process to the extent that it has become our primary activity. I am certain that without NGO vetting of review proposals, public expectations of a generous provision of public lands and secure public access would not be an assured outcome. My employment in this field is funded entirely by donations from thousands of individuals who see this work as vital either for themselves or their offspring.

Given the Green Party's four main principles of ecological wisdom, social responsibility, appropriate decision making (by those affected), and non-violence, our first reaction to the Party's Treaty Policy was that of disbelief bordering on treachery, that such a profound subversion of the public interest was contemplated. For different reasons, the resultant privatisation of ownership and control brought about by disenfranchisement of the populous at large, would be more expected from a party like ACT than one founded on social responsibility and democracy.

You say in the your letter that the Greens believe that "the Treaty of Waitangi is the founding constitutional document for New Zealand and that a sustainable future for New Zealand involves a healthy, durable and respectful partnership between Maori and Pakeha". I underline "believe" because the party's position is a 'belief' rather than a position founded on objective evaluation of all relevant history, or law.

In the early 1990's when DOC began advocating a 'partnership' with iwi Maori, I took an active interest in Treaty matters so as to better understand the rationale for such an approach to public lands management. Rather than rely solely on what others attribute to the Treaty, I went back to primary sources for my research. This two year study resulted in a 1993 paper entitled 'The Principle of "Partnership" and the Treaty of Waitangi; A review of the validity of a principle of 'partnership' under the Treaty of Waitangi, and its application to the ownership and control of New Zealand's public conservation and recreation estate'.

I reviewed all law journal publications available at that time and relevant case law, in particular the watershed SOE Lands case, which is supposed to provide the legal basis for claims that a 'partnership' exists between the Crown and Maori. I discovered that a huge body of selective quotation of the Treaty, misquotation of the above case, and reliance on what others' purport the Treaty to mean, has fueled a modern-day mythology about the Treaty.

I concluded that -

"The concept of a 'Treaty partnership' arises from a perceived need for the sharing and re-distribution of power and resources with Maori, rather than from the words of the Treaty itself. In common parlance, 'Treaty partnership' is ill defined, confused, and misleading - dangerously so in regard to the Crown's obligations to all citizens and the potential for detriment to the majority of New Zealanders. There is an inherent and inescapable connotation of equality between the 'partners' that make the use of the term inappropriate in the full context of the Treaty. As a metaphor, 'partnership' raises impossible, and unfair, expectations. In relation to the Treaty, 'partnership' between races, or between the Crown and Maori, is no less than a myth -more so is the notion of 'equal partnership'. The Court of Appeal has spelt out on three occasions that there is no equality in the 'partnership'. However the driving engines of 'partnership' within and outside Government either haven't heard or don't care to know".

"There is an irreconcilable conflict between 'partnership' and 'equal citizenship' views of the Treaty. The former has no basis in the Treaty -it is a creature of social engineers, the judiciary, and a bureaucracy captured by a 'politically correct' Treaty orthodoxy. The latter has direct expression in the usually preferentially quoted Maori version of the Treaty -all New Zealanders have the same rights and duties of citizenship."

"There is a major gulf between the legislative 'preservation' purposes of national parks and other protected areas and the variously expressed 'conservation-for-utilisation' preferences of many iwi. Also tribal authority over public access to and use of natural areas contrasts markedly with existing rights of access, conveyed equally on everyone. This conflict of objectives should be fully debated before any consideration is given to handing ownership or control of public lands to private interests. The 'partnership' course is to change the essential character of public lands and whom the intended beneficiaries are, by a confused and undemocratic application of the Treaty".

Subsequent developments at the Court of Appeal have not caused me to revise these conclusions. I have tested my conclusions against DOC's ongoing partnership policies by challenging DOC to provide legal authority for these. Reluctantly they have done so however this consists of misquotes and selective rendering. It is clear from the forever changing justifications for such policies that it is not law that is driving them, but constantly expanding lore or mythology driven by political / social agendas. Rather than open debate about the desirability of removing disparities between identifiable ethnic or socio-economic groups, which most people could subscribe to, a Treaty cloak is being used to subjugate non-Maori descendents as second class citizens (I have personal experience of this already, in my dealings with DOC). I think your Treaty policy would have this unavoidable consequence. If implemented, this would cause immeasurable harm to New Zealand society and institutions, including to the Green Party.

You say that there is no fundamental conflict between honouring the Treaty and safeguarding our natural heritage. I agree. The problem I perceive, however, is that what the Green Party attributes to the Treaty, rather than its relatively simple provisions, will cause fundamental conflict.

Just about every notion cited as justification for the party policy is challengeable, with some terms being highly offensive to the status of many New Zealanders. The following concepts have no provision in the 1840 Treaty, whatever the version -

• partnership
• equal partnership
• Pakeha
• Tauiwi
• Tangata Whenua
• unbridled tino rangatiratanga
• 'Aotearoa' applied as a pre-European, or Treaty name, for all of New Zealand
• the notion of 'current settlers'
• the Treaty as the founding constitutional document - this ignores the constitutional structures, citizen rights and protections (including the property protections specified in Article Two), and well-recorded common law - all imported from England.

Specific Policies relating to the Conservation Estate
"The Green Party support a partnership approach in the joint ownership and management of the conservation estate. This involves joint ownership (estate in fee simple) being vested in the Crown, and the iwi and hapu who are the traditional 1840 owners of the land. The Green Party completely oppose any privatisation of the conservation estate. Joint ownership must remain with the Crown, iwi, and hapu for perpetuity".

Comment:
1. As noted above, there is no partnership entitlement arising from the Treaty. Also the notion that one portion of an indivisible Crown, as now effectively embodied in executive Ministers accountable to representatives of all the people of New Zealand, can be in 'partnership' with itself is a nonsense.

2. It is contradictory to vest the fee simple in private entities in whole or in part and to claim to completely oppose privatisation. Fee simple is the highest estate or private interest in land that anyone can hold.

3. Vesting ownership in the 1840 landowners, irrespective of legitimate land purchases by the Crown, is a flagrant breach of Article Two rights of the Crown to purchase, hold and manage land. There is a Treaty claim process through the Waitangi Tribunal to deal with land claims. This policy negates "full and final" settlements, such as with Tainui and Ngai Tahu who agreed to abide by these settlements, and jeopardises public ownership by the Crown on everyone's behalf. This is nothing short of a fraudulent breach of the terms of the Treaty.

"The Green Party propose that the conservation estate be jointly managed at a regional level by increasing the roles and powers of the present Conservation Boards. Fifty percent of the seats on the board will be for the iwi and hapu representatives of the region and fifty percent will be for community representatives and interest groups (for example, Forest and Bird and local residents)".

"The conservation boards will have input and participation in the development of all DOC policy and budget priorities in the management of their regions conservation estate".

Comment:
1. There is no Treaty entitlement to 50 or any other fixed percentage of representation on conservation boards. The Court of Appeal has repeatedly made this point. The notion that approximately 13 percent of the population have 50 percent of the say by virtue of ancestry is elitist, racist, and completely undemocratic. In effect this 50 percent would have a veto over all Crown actions and the wider public interest would be at best be marginalised, at worst non-existent.

2. Conservation boards have advisory roles, not management functions - that is the job of DOC.

"The Green Party support the concept of special sites such as urupa and wahi tapu areas being exclusively gifted to the relevant iwi or hapu. These would be limited in size but would provide iwi and hapu the right to veto any DOC activity on them if they choose to do so".

Comment:
1. PANZ has sympathy for the policy as far as urupa are concerned, but believes there is too wide a scope for misuse of powers from gifting wahi tapu.

2. The policy illustrates the confusion of the policy's authors over what public lands are and DOC's role. If these areas are "exclusively gifted", what need to veto "any DOC activity on them"? DOC would not have a role unless the new owners agreed to such.

3. Any proposed disposal of 'special sites' must require a public process to ensure that powers to gift public land are not misused.

"The Green Party support initiatives to include local tangata whenua in the employment of DOC, as well as in the handing out of contracts to carry out specific tasks for DOC, for example, contract possum trapping and poisoning, visitor services in parks, wasp eradication etc."

Comment:
1. PANZ supports the use of any persons or groups that demonstrate a commitment to the purposes of public lands, however there should be no preference given to one interest or another on the basis of race and residence. Selection should be on demonstrated ability to perform specific tasks, with public accountability for that performance. There should be no "hand outs". All contracts should result from open tender.

2. The concept of 'tangata whenua' in the context of this policy implies a special status for local iwi or hapu, ahead of other Maori and other citizens. 'Tangata whenua' were "the original inhabitants (people of the land)" (Concise Maori Dictionary. Reed, Karetu. 1987). They are long gone through assimilation and annihilation, which is one reason they are not referred to in the Treaty. The current changed meaning depends on assimilation and current land occupation or presence. It is illogical to argue that this special status is conveyed on some because of ancestry and residence while denying that assimilation and mixed ancestry continued to a greater extent through European and other inter-marriage.

3. Article Three guarantees equal rights and duties for all citizens. The concept of special status for 'tangata whenua' unavoidably means less than special or second-class status for everyone else.

"The Green Party support funding iwi and hapu representatives that are employed for consultation purposes by DOC at appropriate market rates for their time, travel and accommodation".

Comment:
1. This is an insult to the generations of people who have contributed lifetimes of effort towards the establishment and management of public lands, all without monetary reward and minimal or only occasional recompense for direct expenses. Most effort has been financed by private contributions. I have spent, for instance, as one of a few non government workers in this field, most of my working life as an advocate for the public interest, recompensed at far less than the average wage.

2. As well as such voices being given no future weight, they are going to be lorded over by state-funded advocates for one sector interest, who had previous opportunity to contribute to conservation boards, etc., but generally choose not to do so.

3. There should be NO financial rewards to anyone who wishes to be consulted. The only rewards should derive from knowledge that their contributions have been for the public rather than personal or private entity benefit.

"The Green Party supports the principle that where there are issues in contention between Maori and the Crown with respect to the management of the conservation estate; and customary and other rights of Maori to fishing and other harvesting, these issues be solved in consultation as between equal partners".

Comment:
1. The Courts have established that there is no equal partnership between the Crown and Maori (refer to Appendix 1).

2. Other policies for 'customary use rights' in the conservation estate, for harvest of otherwise protected plants and animals with a new bottom line of "ecological sustainable of resources", are a major change from the preservation and protection purposes of conservation areas. This policy runs counter to "the prohibition of marine mammals (seals and whales etc.) from being available for customary and commercial harvest". The inconsistency is unexplained but will not be lost on voters.

3. Policies advocating management roles for conservation boards either demonstrate lack of familiarity with the respective roles of boards and DOC, or imply an intent to wind-down the latter's role. Consequently there could be no public body with public and political accountability for the management of 'the conservation estate'. Other policies concerning concessions and proposed control by Tangata Tiaki of non-native fish species demonstrate a contempt for the legitimate interests of other New Zealanders that I believe will rebound on the Green Party as a political force.

IN CONCLUSION, PANZ believes that if the Greens' Treaty policy remains essentially as it is, it is destined to be severely criticised by us and others during the run up to the 2002 general election...I believe that many Green voters ... will consider the so-called Treaty policy such an affront to their personal standing as citizens that they will not be able to support the Greens at the election.

Yours sincerely

Bruce Mason
Trustee and Researcher

Appendices
'The Principle of "Partnership" and the Treaty of Waitangi' 1993
DOC response
PANZ critique
'Being fair-minded while avoiding the global guilt trap'. The Independent, 8 September 1995.

---

Public Access New Zealand, P.O.Box 17, Dunedin, New Zealand

---